电和磁刺激对脑卒中后上肢功能的影响:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
PM&R Pub Date : 2025-05-21 DOI:10.1002/pmrj.13356
Apisara Keesukphan, Monchai Suntipap, Kunlawat Thadanipon, Suparee Boonmanunt, Pawin Numthavaj, Gareth J McKay, John Attia, Ammarin Thakkinstian
{"title":"电和磁刺激对脑卒中后上肢功能的影响:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Apisara Keesukphan, Monchai Suntipap, Kunlawat Thadanipon, Suparee Boonmanunt, Pawin Numthavaj, Gareth J McKay, John Attia, Ammarin Thakkinstian","doi":"10.1002/pmrj.13356","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To pool and rank the efficacy of various stimulation therapies, including repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS), neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), functional electrical stimulation (FES), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and combinations of these interventions on upper extremity function, activities of daily living (ADL), and spasticity after stroke relative to sham/conventional rehabilitation.</p><p><strong>Literature survey: </strong>MEDLINE, Scopus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to July 2022.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Randomized controlled trials comparing any of the interventions mentioned above (rPMS, NMES, FES, TMS, NMES+rPMS, NMES+TMS, FES+TMS, and conventional rehabilitation) on upper extremity function, ADL, or spasticity from five databases were systematically reviewed and collected. Two-stage network meta-analysis was applied.</p><p><strong>Synthesis: </strong>Thirty-four studies involving 1476 patients reporting upper extremity function with the Fugl-Meyer Assessment were pooled. NMES combined with rPMS, NMES, NMES combined with TMS, TMS, and FES showed significantly higher improvement than conventional rehabilitation, with pooled mean differences (95% confidence intervals) of 14.69 (9.94-19.45), 9.09 (6.01-12.18), 6.10 (2.51-9.69), 4.07 (0.33-7.81), and 3.61 (0.14-7.07) respectively. NMES combined with rPMS had the highest probability for improving upper extremity function. NMES plus TMS had the highest probability for improving ADL, but none of the interventions showed significant differences in spasticity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>NMES plus rPMS might be the best intervention to improve upper extremity functions, with NMES plus TMS most likely to lead to improved ADL but the quality of the evidence is low.</p>","PeriodicalId":20354,"journal":{"name":"PM&R","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of electrical and magnetic stimulation on upper extremity function after stroke: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Apisara Keesukphan, Monchai Suntipap, Kunlawat Thadanipon, Suparee Boonmanunt, Pawin Numthavaj, Gareth J McKay, John Attia, Ammarin Thakkinstian\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pmrj.13356\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To pool and rank the efficacy of various stimulation therapies, including repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS), neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), functional electrical stimulation (FES), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and combinations of these interventions on upper extremity function, activities of daily living (ADL), and spasticity after stroke relative to sham/conventional rehabilitation.</p><p><strong>Literature survey: </strong>MEDLINE, Scopus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to July 2022.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Randomized controlled trials comparing any of the interventions mentioned above (rPMS, NMES, FES, TMS, NMES+rPMS, NMES+TMS, FES+TMS, and conventional rehabilitation) on upper extremity function, ADL, or spasticity from five databases were systematically reviewed and collected. Two-stage network meta-analysis was applied.</p><p><strong>Synthesis: </strong>Thirty-four studies involving 1476 patients reporting upper extremity function with the Fugl-Meyer Assessment were pooled. NMES combined with rPMS, NMES, NMES combined with TMS, TMS, and FES showed significantly higher improvement than conventional rehabilitation, with pooled mean differences (95% confidence intervals) of 14.69 (9.94-19.45), 9.09 (6.01-12.18), 6.10 (2.51-9.69), 4.07 (0.33-7.81), and 3.61 (0.14-7.07) respectively. NMES combined with rPMS had the highest probability for improving upper extremity function. NMES plus TMS had the highest probability for improving ADL, but none of the interventions showed significant differences in spasticity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>NMES plus rPMS might be the best intervention to improve upper extremity functions, with NMES plus TMS most likely to lead to improved ADL but the quality of the evidence is low.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PM&R\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PM&R\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.13356\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PM&R","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.13356","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:汇总和排名各种刺激疗法的疗效,包括重复性外周磁刺激(rPMS)、神经肌肉电刺激(NMES)、功能电刺激(FES)、经颅磁刺激(TMS),以及这些干预措施的组合对上肢功能、日常生活活动(ADL)和卒中后痉挛的影响,相对于假/常规康复。文献调查:检索MEDLINE、Scopus、物理治疗证据数据库、Cochrane中央对照临床试验注册库和谷歌Scholar,检索时间从成立到2022年7月。方法:系统地回顾和收集五个数据库中比较上述任何干预措施(rPMS、NMES、FES、TMS、NMES+rPMS、NMES+TMS、FES+TMS和常规康复)对上肢功能、ADL或痉挛的随机对照试验。采用两阶段网络元分析。综合:34项研究涉及1476例用Fugl-Meyer评估报告上肢功能的患者。NMES联合rPMS、NMES、NMES联合TMS、TMS、FES的改善效果显著高于常规康复,合并平均差异(95%可信区间)分别为14.69(9.94 ~ 19.45)、9.09(6.01 ~ 12.18)、6.10(2.51 ~ 9.69)、4.07(0.33 ~ 7.81)、3.61(0.14 ~ 7.07)。NMES联合rPMS改善上肢功能的概率最高。NMES + TMS在改善ADL方面的可能性最高,但在痉挛方面均无显著差异。结论:NMES + rPMS可能是改善上肢功能的最佳干预措施,其中NMES + TMS最有可能改善ADL,但证据质量较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effects of electrical and magnetic stimulation on upper extremity function after stroke: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Objectives: To pool and rank the efficacy of various stimulation therapies, including repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS), neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), functional electrical stimulation (FES), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and combinations of these interventions on upper extremity function, activities of daily living (ADL), and spasticity after stroke relative to sham/conventional rehabilitation.

Literature survey: MEDLINE, Scopus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to July 2022.

Methodology: Randomized controlled trials comparing any of the interventions mentioned above (rPMS, NMES, FES, TMS, NMES+rPMS, NMES+TMS, FES+TMS, and conventional rehabilitation) on upper extremity function, ADL, or spasticity from five databases were systematically reviewed and collected. Two-stage network meta-analysis was applied.

Synthesis: Thirty-four studies involving 1476 patients reporting upper extremity function with the Fugl-Meyer Assessment were pooled. NMES combined with rPMS, NMES, NMES combined with TMS, TMS, and FES showed significantly higher improvement than conventional rehabilitation, with pooled mean differences (95% confidence intervals) of 14.69 (9.94-19.45), 9.09 (6.01-12.18), 6.10 (2.51-9.69), 4.07 (0.33-7.81), and 3.61 (0.14-7.07) respectively. NMES combined with rPMS had the highest probability for improving upper extremity function. NMES plus TMS had the highest probability for improving ADL, but none of the interventions showed significant differences in spasticity.

Conclusions: NMES plus rPMS might be the best intervention to improve upper extremity functions, with NMES plus TMS most likely to lead to improved ADL but the quality of the evidence is low.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PM&R
PM&R REHABILITATION-SPORT SCIENCES
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
187
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Topics covered include acute and chronic musculoskeletal disorders and pain, neurologic conditions involving the central and peripheral nervous systems, rehabilitation of impairments associated with disabilities in adults and children, and neurophysiology and electrodiagnosis. PM&R emphasizes principles of injury, function, and rehabilitation, and is designed to be relevant to practitioners and researchers in a variety of medical and surgical specialties and rehabilitation disciplines including allied health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信